Judge Rules Google Won’t Have to Sell Ad-Tech Business in Antitrust Case
- District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled against the divestiture request while still keeping intact her prior finding that the search giant illegally monopolized...
- The Justice Department had pushed for an aggressive remedy during the second phase of the landmark antitrust case, arguing that Google could not be trusted to operate AdX...
- Finding that a company illegally maintained a monopoly does not automatically require a court to break up the business under antitrust law.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled against the divestiture request while still keeping intact her prior finding that the search giant illegally monopolized parts of the digital advertising market. Instead of breaking up the company, the court imposed behavioral restrictions designed to limit anticompetitive conduct and give rivals more room to compete in the online ad space.
Antitrust Ruling Rejects Forced AdX Divestiture
The Justice Department had pushed for an aggressive remedy during the second phase of the landmark antitrust case, arguing that Google could not be trusted to operate AdX after years of anticompetitive conduct. The decision leaves intact Brinkema’s April 2025 ruling that Google violated federal antitrust law by unlawfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in publisher ad servers and advertising exchanges. Google welcomed the decision, stating that a forced sale would have disrupted tools relied upon by businesses and publishers. Meanwhile, the Justice Department stated that it was pleased the court ordered substantial relief and noted it was evaluating next steps. The full ruling remains under seal for 14 days while the court removes confidential business information.
https://x.com/NewsFromGoogle/status/2095170847694557309
Behavioral Remedies Replace Structural Breakup
Finding that a company illegally maintained a monopoly does not automatically require a court to break up the business under antitrust law. Once a violation is established, judges must separately determine what remedy is necessary to restore competition. Courts can choose between structural separation, such as a forced sale, or behavioral remedies like operating restrictions and mandated access. Judge Brinkema accepted behavioral remedies in lieu of a breakup, though the specific requirements will not become public until the court releases its redacted opinion.
Background on the Digital Advertising Monopoly Case
The litigation centers on the invisible technology powering advertisements on millions of websites. Publisher ad servers allow websites to manage available page space, while ad exchanges operate as electronic marketplaces where inventory sells instantly as pages load. Google operates products on multiple sides of this ecosystem, charging publishers a 20 percent fee when sales occur through its AdX exchange. The Justice Department and a coalition of states filed their lawsuit in 2023, alleging Google used its control over interconnected products to suppress competition. After a three-week trial, Judge Brinkema ruled in April 2025 that Google unlawfully tied publishers using its ad server to its AdX exchange, depriving rivals of opportunities to compete and harming both publishers and consumers. However, the government did not prevail on every claim, as the court rejected a separate allegation that Google illegally monopolized the market for advertiser ad networks.
